Oh yeah, the Liberals get a free ride by the media:

Mike Klander called Jack Layton an asshole (agreed in the main, but then again I've been brushed off by Jack"well I guess we'll have to agree to disagree about that" Layton in person,) but Gordon Stamp refers to an entire region of the nation's electorate as idiots. Do you suppose he'll get as rough a treatment by the "Liberal media?" Look the Media have their story, bumbling, stuttering, idiot loses election to tin man, eventually learning how to have heart. Nothing's going to change that story line, sadly. However the election is an entirely different story.

Tracy parsons will bust ass this campaign and Sheila Copps will ignore her and call the Grits sexist...

Heward Grafftey will be ignored by the national campaign and may shock the hell out of everybody. Stockwell day may be external affairs minister (shudder) and I will try to lose 130 pounds. The universe is unfolding as it should.

In other nationalist news:

David Orchard isn't running. He doesn't seem to be campaigning even. He's just quietly reminding voters that the Conservatives are not as lilly white on corruption as they claim to be

That's about it for this year. I'm still thinking about who to endorse in Edmonton Centre. I'll let you know next week.

The Reson the FTA was ratified:

The fact is, he's electioneering.

He'll say anything to get elected. And whipping up the rhetoric against George Bush is very easy to do. The problem is, he hasn't delivered the goods.

He thinks he can stand up and wag his finger at George Bush and somehow impress somebody, It's time he started delivering results. That would allow Canadians to be able to speak to the world.

Canadians have known that the Liberals will say anything in an election to get elected. I think now the ambassador has discovered the same thing.

-Jack Layton on Paul Martin.

Yes, Jacko has to convince the good little Canuckistani (including me) that they're the only option to protect Canada. It's why Rick Salutin called the Social Democrats the Killers of Hope.

And it's why John Turner lost in '88

And it's why I'm a PC.

Retraction:

Brian Mulroney Ran in Central Nova to get a seat in the House of Commons, a seat vacated by Elmer MacKay, Peter Mackay's father. Elmer went on to join the cabinet and like many Mulroney Cabinet ministers get caught in a firestorm over alleged abuse of office.

Joe Clark ran in Kings-Hants in 2000, only to have Chretien dissove the House of Commons the next month.

Thank you Scott.

"Come Gentlemen we have a government to" preserve:

It is reassuring to know that Val Sears still yearns for a Lib-Dipper alliance. But I think what I like best about the article are these paragraphs:

It makes a good many people -- including me -- nostalgic for the days of the old Progressive Conservative Party. It may not have been very progressive but it certainly wasn't scary. You could be sure the country would survive a few years of Toryism while the "natural governing party" learned what Opposition was like.

I'm suspicious of the new, moderate, well-groomed Harper. If he can throw out established neo-Conservative fundamentalist principles, could he not junk moderate policy as well? With a majority, nothing could stop him and I'm sure it would take decades to repair the damage.

Former Students recall Alito as open minded:

Plus they'd really like to have the name of a Supreme court justice on their resume.

Look Peter I wasn't going to say anything:

Peter Goldring took a shot at the Liberals for running candidates out of riding even though he doesn't live in his riding. Rona Ambrose, Edmonton-Spruce Grove Candidate lives in Edmonton Strathcona. Brian Mulroney, Montrealer ran in King's Hants Nova Scotia and Manicougan QC. Preston Manning lived in Edmonton and relocated to run, but Stockwell Day took a vacant seat in BC. Laurie Hawn lives outside Edmonton Centre, so does Ignatief. So did I. Jack Pickersgill was elected 7 times for a Newfoundland riding and never resided in the province. This is not arrogance. This is simply people identifying thier consituency, even though they don't live there.

Peter Goldring, you try to be on top of every issue that you think will get you press, but you instead come off as a callow opportunist. Eventually, this gets recognised.

Oh, Heward's not gonna win, the PCs aren't going anywhere, I'm a big smelly head, blah, blah, blah.

Guess I'm not the only one who disagrees. At least with the Heward part.

My only concer is that this may set up us the bomb, otherwise all Harper's ridings are belong to us.

Once again, elevating the discourse...

Maybe.

Some Liberal Idiot Compared Olivia Chow to a Chow Chow on his blog.

Then some dipper called the Liberal idiot a racist instead of someone who is just, well, stupid. Admittedly the Liberals have been racist... when they though there was votes in it. But that hasn't been for decades. The NDP are racist now, because they think there's votes in it.

You wanna know why I'm right? They'll ask me what minority group rights the NDP has been opposing. Anglo Quebecers and white males BTW.

Olivia strikes me as disingenuous and its pretty clear that she cribbed her fortune cookie recipie from yahoo for the bake-off, but she's no chow chow, a Cairn Terrier Puppy maybe:















The one on the right, big perpetually happy face and that round head. Definite Cairn. I on the other hand better match this breed:















Goldendoodle: Sad, intense eyes, mid section thickness, mild jowlyness.

Let it never be said I'm unwilling to take a jab at my self.

Ciao.

Now you're gonna hear something about me padding my post numbers:

That's just not true.

Assuming they don't print it, an open letter to the Edmonton Sun:

Though initially I was lost for words by the exceptionally flawed reasoning of your editorial board this morning, I still thought that I would take the gamble that your basic sense of logic might still overpower your partisanship:

The great success in the pilot project was in centreing resources on the patient and planning schedules and processes around the patient rather than strengthening the organisation. This could NOT have been achieved in a 'private' system. You have confused private with arms-length. For example: CN is Private; Via Rail is arms-length. A private organisation has one sole responsibility BY LAW: To its shareholders. Government's role has been the focus of perpetual debate and a myriad... sorry Sun editors, lots of ideas. This program personified the idea of the individualist-servant nature of government: That government is not supposed to be about process, but rather achieving individual results. A company trying to make money can never embrace this model as it would be bilking its shareholders out of thier hard-earned investments.

Now I'm sure you will completely miss the point of this letter, the context and economic analysis proferred and clap your heads over your ears with the same lack of decorum that you had when you asserted that the Grits were leading due to public drunkenness (Bravo...), but please, if you do decide to publish this letter have some sense of decorum and leave the cogent points intact instead of trying to pick the one you feel is weakeset without the logical support of the others and go from point 'A' to point 'B' instead of from point 'A' to point 'Vote Harper'

Pleeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeease,

Sean Tisdall

Agnostifest, or, Friends don't let friends make up holidays that I'd celebrate given the chance:

So Steve wishes everyone a Merry Agnostifest.

Being more or less an agnostic which is to say apathetic about spiritualism and relatively amused/annoyed by religion at best/worst, I wanted to learn more. Wikipedia says that there is no entry for Agnostifest and that in fact Steve's Blog has the only entry.

So I guess he was being funny. Well you sure fooled me Steve. I thought that once again I had missed out on a great bit of hackcruft oh well. Anyway there should be an agnostifest even if the internet doesn't acknowledge that it exists or that if it exists that it must not much matter.

Some suggestions for Agnostifest:

1. Santa, Gifts, Tree, Menorrah, Turkey, and/or Ham? All acceptable. Let's keep the ridiculous traditions we were born with thank you.

2. Date for Gifts: January 1st. Boxing Week Specials.

3. Agnostifest activities include listening to George Carlin and legal venality.

4. Royalty Cheques for 0.01 CAD everytime the phrase is used to be given to the host of the Agnostifest family gathering. Pennies are also acceptible.

5. Ideally the host of Agnostifest Day is the host of the New Years eve party. Keep it small, well liqured and everybody's sleeping over.

6. Agnostifest dinner is preceeded at precicely 2PM by agnostifest brunch:

Cold Reheated pizza and Red Eyes (Beer + Clamato)

I have a dream.

Harper, desuetude, and the folly of provincial jurisdiction:

When the United States filed to have Marc Emery extradited to face charges of trafficing in illegal narcotics it cited the fact that Canada had a law on the books that made the sale of marijuana seeds illegal, thus making Mr. Emery eligible for extradition. Critics pointed out that the law hadn't been enforced since 1968 making the law fall into what is known as desuetude The provinces have allowed the federal government to subidise hospital care insurance (at the very core of the provincial health care perogative), since roughly 1960, under the Diefenbaker government.

Therefore, if the law on marijuana has fallen into desuetude, it can be argued that the provincial perogative of sole responsibility for health care has also fallen into disuetude. It follows that Paul Martin is more than justified in ripping any rebel premiers a new one on health care, it's the perogative of cabinet to do so. Stephen Harper's pledge to uphold a legal right, which the provinces gave up voluntarily, rings hollow as a result. If he said I think the provinces should have more power than they do currently as opposed to saying he would defend those current powers I would respect the logic and nuance of his arguement more but would still disagree.

Also had a great Christmas. I ate too much. We watched the Trailer Park Boys Christmas Special. And my dad gave my sister a gift so touching that she burst into tears. Best. Christmas. Ever.

And if you thought the last 70 posts sucked... Hold on for the ride of your life! Or, um, not.

This Christmas I bring you not politics, but a grand insight.

Came home on thursday night sleep deprived and looking forward to a patented 12-hour REM session aided by the song, "Out of Control," by the Band: She Wants Revenge. On repeat. You know how, given the quintessential decision, most will go with Betty? C'mon, I'm sure you do. We all know she's the genuine and sensible one, I just never knew how passionate she was.

I'm as bewildered as you are. I hope.

"I've read about free trade... and it sounds good in theory"

-PC Candidate Mike Fedeymko

Met Mike Today. He's the Tory candidate in Edmonton Strathcona. Warm, outgoing, prone to beer, a free speech hawk, a central federalist, prone to generalisations on my part, etc.

Vote for him. I will.

In other news Steve's cell number works and no he didn't committ suicide. It's in bad taste but I went there anyways.

David Orchard sent me a christmas/holiday/just because I think you're sexy card. I'm flattered.

Gilles Duceppe doesn't know why we should vote on an issue again after we voted on it and had a big debate. I ought to agree with him for tactical reasons, but I would submit that he's wrong.

Paul Martin kicked ass in debate by actually managing to inspire my dad. Unfortunately his vote is going to mean $1.75 a year

An open letter to the elections commissioner:

If you charge me with failing to file I will plead guilty because I have failed to file. There are but two wonders:

1.My sheer incompetence following the 2004 campaign
2.The fact you didn't charge me in mid November 2004
3. How Blake Roberts can appear on the stage at a Conservative Party rally. I consider this carte blanche RE: democracy, respect for for me to continue to shoot my mouth off.

The continuation of my punditry:

Stephen Harper won't admit that he has to use the notwithstandingclause.
Paul Martin won't admit that the greatest consitutional wrecker of them all was Pierre Trudeau.
Jack Layton won't admit that he's protecting minority rights not human rights.
Tracy Parsons won't admit that Dr. Doom could totally beat Reed Richards in a fight to the finish.
I won't admit that my articulate nature has escaped me
Lorne Gunter won't admit that he is a big smelly head.

This interview is over!

Interest rates and an expression of the risk premium:

I know very very dry right. Well there's a point that I wish to make to all the tired - 'we have no alternative but NAFTA' continentalists. I was in the bank the other day and to quell my general boredom I had a look at the electronic display that shows the major interest rates, including CAnadian and US Prime Rates. Historically you could have simply put US + 1/4% when expressing the Canadian rate. There have been a couple of abberations, including when that monetarist John Crow got his hands on the bank rate, but even including that, Canadian interest rates have been higher than the American rates by a nominal, but significant amount. Recently I noted that the Canadian Prime rate was 5% while the American rate was 7%.

A 2 point spread on lending rates that should be untennable in an economy where american companies looking to finance, and having large and well capitalised Canadian subsidiaries should simply be able to flood the Canadian market with demand for finance until prices reach near parity, assuming that the American economy was equally as strong. However if Canadian banks no longer viewed the American economy as being equally secure or more secure as the Canadian economy. If Canadian bankers finally noticed that the little nation of 32 Million had a better grasp of the economic fundamentals, and for that matter less than the perceived dependence on the US in terms of vertical (apples for oranges) trade, than its large neighbour to the south, despite its supposedly onerous marginal tax rates and supposedly perpetually dishonest politicians.

The market has spoken. The Chicago School is failing.

From the Beer Not Kids Petition, an analysis of the Childcare Policy that makes mine pale... pail... payl? in comparison.
.
Chris Olson:

I think the only way to bring peace to Canadians fired up over this divisive issue is to be Canadian and be fair. Let's give everyone $25 a week. Thus, if you have some magical fairies or leprechauns that take care of your kids for only $25 a week, you actually benefit from this, and if you don't, you can spend it on beer. That's choice, it's fair, and it should be the Canadian way. Either that or the conservatives could come up with a plan that does more than cover the cost of gas to the day-care centre...

I now have as many posts as the Alliance had MPs in 2000.

I don't actually follow the statistics per se, but I like to think I know my readership.

Rick Mercer is standing up for a fine Canadian institution and taking on the perfidity of teetotalling.

Please do sign.

I know I get repetative about this, but she's my dad's MP and he, my sister, and I were a one-parent household for years, so Rona's got this coming:

From the Fiberals:

Rona Ambrose Wrong on Child Care PlanDecember 06, 2005
Today in an interview on CTV’s Canada AM, Conservative child care critic Rona Ambrose, claimed that 90 per cent of Canadian women with children would not benefit from the Liberal government’s plan to build a national child care system:
“You’re not addressing their needs … So we just ignore 90 per cent of women across the country?” (Rona Ambrose, Canada AM, December 6, 2005)
Fact:
According to Statistics Canada, fully 84 per cent of families have parents who are both in the workforce and 70 per cent of women with children under the age of six are employed.
In fact it is the Conservative plan that, after taxes, only offers Canadian parents a mere $19 a week.

Energizing the base.

Why Jimmy Carter is the greatest American president ever:

On October 14, 1978 President Carter signed into law a bill that legalized the homebrewing of beer and wine.

Urgent pants staining press rel3ase from Conservative HQ:

It's become obvious that the Liberals don't trust you to spend the money that you've earned, Scott Reid's beer and popcorn quip just underlines the rank paternalism evident in the Liberal-Adscam-Socialist-Bush Bashing- Planet Polluting-Insider Trading Party

Like the Liberal Gun Registry at an exorbitant cost of $2 Billion. The Conservatives trust you to know how to best spend your money to register your guns, therefore a Conservative government will give $2000 each to every registered gun owner to help defray their personal costs of gun control. The Liberals only spent $1000 per registered owner and didn't trust responsible gun owners to protect their firearms. Why these farmers and urban gun nu... er... enthusiasts love their guns like they love their children, but there the Liberals go banning children small enough to be cradled in the palm of one's hand.

Or for that matter the weak and bureaucratic justice system. Canada has 36,000 prisoners and we spend $4.6 Billion per year on public security. The Conservatives feel that money is being wasted by the bureaucracy and the politicians and thus instead will make a payment of $100,000 per year to each prisoner to let them look after themselves and in return they can be responible for beating the shit out of terrorists on domestic soil too. We're sure they'll eventually end up mugging a terrorist or two. Now Scott Ried would have you believe that if we let these prisoners make their own incarceration that they'd blow it on Hookers and Beer. Well the Conservative Party trusts Canadians with Canadian money.

Let's not forget Defence policy. Right now Canada is spending $12.9 Billion on defence. Who from? Well even though the Liberals are massing troops and CCRA agents at the 49th paralell for an invasion of the United States, the Conservatives know that the threats are the Iraq insurgency, Iran, and North Korea. So we'll just cut them a cheque for $4.3 Billion to cover the expense of invading and blowing the crap out of themselves. Surely Kim Jong Il is better suited to inflicting misery on North Korean than a distant political bureaucracy. Why should we be so presumptuous? Here in the Conservaitve policy we understand that you can't solve problems just by cutting a cheque. No the cheque has to be based on a flimsy rationalle of some sort.

The preceeding was satire. I hope.

Actually, Scott Reid has a point:

First customer I talked to about this 'gaffe' this morning said that he pays $680 a month for child care. So unless $580 is affordable and $680's out of reach you're pretty much up shit crick without a paddle when it comes to institutional 9-5 care, which, oddly enough, is what institutional 9-5 workers, either single or 2 income, tend to need. So if the money can't buy you more or better child care what can it buy you? well it can make life a little easier for you and the kids. Maybe you'll have a 6 pack and a couple of videos and fire up the air popper for a little bit of popcorn. This isn't to say that that won't make life easier for parents and children, just that parents, like everyone else are very good at shifting expenditures. For that matter, parents may 'blow' the money they save under the Liberal plan on the same beer and popcorn. Scott Reid would just like to see some guarantees that the money the government spends can be traced directly to child care. Fair enough the Conservatives would like some guarantee that money the government spends can be traced to value too, but apparently being a parent is more than enough oversight for the Conservative party.

BTW Scott Reid would also like some Prairie Fellatio. I can't help him with that, but I'm sure that there must be someone out there in Seanquixoteland who would take Scott up on his offer. Please, look him up. The guy must be stressed by now.

Oddly enough:

The Conservatives trust you to take your child to pre-school, but not to hockey practice. Having introduced a $500 non-refundable tax credit that will work out to $80 at tax time if you're earning enough to pay taxes. If not, well flabby children are really the least of your concerns. Why do the Conservatives think that everything can be made all better with a tax credit? Tax credits for apprentices, bus passes, soccer moms. The tax credit system, by the by, is the most complicated and bureaucratic part of the tax return, this in addition to the cut in the GST rate, which will keep enforcement costs the same, will make government less efficient in its collection of taxes.

Vote Conservative for more suck, less buck.

Maybe I'm the only one who finds this interesting, but:

Warning: All sources will be negatively spun so as to obscure the actual issue. Well... just the one really.

Watching a graph of the tracking polls at the Conservative Bashing Corporation website, the Liberals and NDP gained ground as a percentage of decided voters while the Bloc and Conservatives lost ground. What's interesting is that this coincided with a jump in the percentage of undecided voters. This would incicate that the softness in voting patterns actually lies with the Conservatives and Bloc. Also as the campaign defines itself we are starting to see more consistency with Liberal and NDP losses translating into BQ and CPC gains and vice versa. This would support John Duffy's theory advanced in the spring of a 'great election' turning around the issue of national unity.

Of course it could just be a rogue poll too, but I'm not so sure. As Allan Gregg said lamenting Joe Clarks loss in '80:

"The reasons for voting Conservative were six to one negative."

If Don Martin's reading, I'll offer him that 2-1 on a Conservative Minority he was asking for.

Presenting the least, that thing that Britney Spears is, (apologies to SF) Conservative Policy of the Campign thus far and I'm going to guess the entire campaign.

The Baby Bonus! Er... Child care policy, really.

In addition to $1.25 B in tax credits to businesses for providing 125,000 daycare spaces, the Conservatives are promising parents a cheque from the government of $100 every month for every child 6 and under to spend as they please with a view to provide partial relief of child care costs. The (subsidy/bonus/choice of parents over politicians/other talking point with dollar signs attached) will be treated as taxable income applied to the income of the poorer parent.

Good Points:

The payments are universal:

Harper is actually promising a universal entitlement. I didn't think he could do this without spontaneously combusting.

The payments are progressive:

In that the more you earn, the more $1200 of additional income will be taxed.

Bad Points:

The plan is spendthrift:

Harper's plan will cost about $940 Million per year more than the Liberal Plan for the first five years.

The money is poorly targeted:

Small business will be less likely to enjoy the economies of scale to set up such a program. I work at a job where there is 1 person on duty. It is an independent franchise. Do you really think they'll be able to set up a day care centre for Seanquixote Jr. ? What's more if the program is all about choice, then why tax credits to companies for day care, I thought this was the great conflict between the 2-income and 1-income family model. Quoth Rona Ambrose, Conservative MP for Edmonton Spruce Grove:

We don't want old white men telling us how to raise our children.

Odd, considering that the ol' boys network is at least as pervasive at the top of major corporations as it is in Canadian politics. Also the fact that old white men raise children, often on their own, seems to have completly escaped Rona.

Also, the payments component is basically a payment one receives by virtue of having a child, and will not necessarily be used to augment child care. As well, the money ends at age six. Having been raised by a single father, I can tell you the kids will still need day care after age six. And that brings me to my last point:

The program penalises single parents who work:

If you have a double income household you can still offload the money onto the spouse with the lower income. Often one spouse will work full time and the other part time. However Single working parents who are meeting additional expenses on thier own, who don't enjoy the utility that two parent households do in terms of flexibility, who enjoy fewer economies of scale than do two parent households, and who have incomes roughly 70% as high as the family average in the case of single mothers and 90% as high as the family avg. in the case single fathers, are going to work. They have to unless they are (on social assistance/independently wealthy/working out of the home) In otherwords this is not the norm. Single parents, the people most likely to benefit from a subsidized day care program, and thus a considered target of the Liberal plan, will enjoy the least benefit from a taxable cheque for $100 to spend as they please.

You know what frosts me about this issue roll out the most. The conceit that Mr. Harper seems to have that he isn't a politician:

Stephen: You are leader of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition, you have served six years in parliament, run in four elections, two as leader, drafted the Refom Party policy, outmaneuvered David Orchard, brought down the government, appeared in the worst fake-objective ads possible...

YOU ARE A POLITICIAN!

Say it with pride. I do. Look in the mirror each morning, whether or not you can see your reflection (these are the jokes people), and repeat this fact over and over again.

Quit pretending that government is a black hole into which value for service is an alien concept. People who respond to issues that way may be more volatile, but they are also less likely to vote.

So I'm going out on a limb and saying that this isn't the last Conservative spending/tax giveaway promise from these supposed non-politicians that we've seen this election. Let's go to the tote board Vanna!

$9.94 Billion per year

We've only just begunnnnnnnn... to spennnnnnnnnnnnd.

Refresh my memory:

Does a candidate from the last election quitting and deciding to run for a party that got 1/400th of the popular vote that your party got in the last election indicate momentum, or implosion.

I got this release from the PC Party recently:

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: December 1, 2005
Stephen Butcher Resigns from Harper’s Conservatives to Run As Progressive Canadian Candidate
TORONTO, ONTARIO - Today Stephen Butcher of Sudbury joined the growing list of those choosing to have their names on the ballot in their constituencies as Progressive Canadian (PC) Party candidates when voters go to the polls on January 23, 2006. Butcher chose to resign his position as a member of the Board of the Sudbury Riding association of the Conservative Party of Canada. His letter of resignation is included below. PC Party Leader Tracy Parsons says,” I am extremely pleased that Mr. Butcher feels that he can best represent his constituency under the Progressive Canadian banner. He is a welcome addition to the team. Mr. Butcher's joining us is another example of why Canadians need the alternative of a socially progressive, fiscally responsible political party."The Progressive Canadian (PC) Party is a registered Federal Political Party comprised of progressive-conservative minded Canadians rebuilding from the roots of the former Progressive Conservative Party. For more information on the PC Party, its policies, structure or general information, go to http://www.progressivecanadian.org/ or call 866-812-6972.

Text of Stephen Butcher’s Letter of Resignation from CPC

Bob Bateman
President Sudbury Riding Association
Conservative Party of Canada

Bob,

Please accept my letter of resignation from the Board of the Sudbury Riding association of the Conservative Party of Canada, effective immediately.

Further please remove my name as a member of the Conservative Party of Canada, effective immediately.

As we have previously spoken about, I no longer feel the Conservative Party of Canada, under the leadership of Stephen Harper and the present National Council, represent the core values of the old Progressive Conservative Party of Canada prior to the merger of the two parties.

I feel that the National Council and Stephen Harper do not lead this party with a desire to make life for Canadians better but instead are in a mission to promote their religious beliefs as their primary objective. I do believe that Harper and the National Council will make anti abortion and anti gay legislation a priority of the government if the Conservative Party of Canada form a majority in parliament.

It was disturbing to me that in our Sudbury Riding candidate election this past spring party guidelines were not followed.

The Conservative Party of Canada candidate election guidelines dictate that the election of a special interest candidate will be over ruled at the national level. The election of Kevin Serviss as the Sudbury Riding candidate for the Conservative Party of Canada clearly violated these guidelines. The vast majority ( greater than 95%) of people who voted for Serviss were not members of the Conservative Party until just prior to the election. None of these people contributed to Conservative Party, Sudbury Riding, in the last election. In addition these people are all members of one church in Sudbury, a church where Serviss is the minister. This is clearly a violation of the candidate election guidelines, yet the national office of the Conservative Party had no problem with Serviss's election and refused to overturn his candidacy.

According to an article in the Toronto Star newspaper this election of religious based candidates has occurred in more than 30 Ontario ridings. How many are there across Canada??

We only have to look south at the present administration of the Republican Party of George W. Bush to see how bad a political party, led by religious based elected officials, can lead a country. The U.S. is at war because Bush believes God directed him to do so. Members of the U.S Supreme Court are appointed not by their knowledge of the law but their religious beliefs, and recent appointments to the Federal Drug Administration scientific board were appointed not for their knowledge of science but for their religious beliefs. Several States in the U.S. no longer allow the teaching of evolution in public schools because in some elected officials minds evolution goes against the their understanding of the bible.

It is a well understood and common sense rule of life, for thousands of years, that church and state should stay separate.

I think it is time to take a stand against this type of movement in Canada.

I begin my stand today with my resignation from the Conservative Party of Canada.

I believe that Canadians, with true Conservative values, would be better represented by the Progressive Canadian Party of Canada. (My emphasis)

This election and next parliament should be about fixing our Health Care, Post Secondary Education, Defence/Peacekeeping, Federal/Provincial Relations, Challenges Facing Aboriginal People, The Environment, Making Our Cities Work, How We Build A More Caring Society. Issues all Canadians can stand behind and support.

Yours truly,

Stephen Butcher

Wow. Harper's bleeding on all sides. Conservatives to the Liberals? Well that's to be expected, they were only in it for the power anyway, if you believe Peter MacKay. Of course I tried that once, didn't work out too well. But, Conservatives to the PC Party? There might be some real momentum here.

All I'm sayin' Stephen is, it doesn't look good.

Rest of Alberta to Will: We ARE a bunch of rich jagoffs, if our heads weren't so far up our own asses we would be blowing Scott Reid.

Scott Reid said while drunk that Alberta can blow him eh?

You see what I did there, it's called a citation it lets the reader know where I got the allegation. Even if I'm dead solid correct I like to put it in so that you the reader have less work to do. It's just one of those things I learned in the Faculty of Arts. Odd, those humanities.

Seriously, our Conservative premier schedules a fall sitting that lasts for 11 DAYS! Graham Thompson gets pissed off and the rest of the province castigates the federal Liberals for their Central Canadian arrogance?! If anything a drunken Grit telling Don Martin what to take and which orifice to put it in is if anything refreshing. I may have to consider voting Liberal in the absence of a PC candidate in Edmonton-Strathcona.

Quoth Diefenbaker's prophet D.O. in a recent radio interview:

"It's hard to feel sympathy for the richest province in the country saying... if those people in Ontario don't vote the way we want than we'll separate."

2 quick points:

1. Western Alienation is right-wing Albertan (not necessarily a redundant term) alienation with the exception of CF-18 and partisan hackery at best.

2. Scott Reid likes to play arrogant evil genius. When the Grits crater in 2010, he'll be welcome in my party anytime, just so long as he's willing to be drunk under the table by an Albertan.

C. The Liberals are running a retired mountie who's pro decriminalisation and patrolled Mayerthorpe, dealing with James Rosko and acutally has the stones to disagree publicly with the Mayerthorpe victims. I don't normally say this, but I'm jealous of the Grits. This guy is a great candidate running against the post-modern face of the Conservative party, Rona Ambrose.

And fourth quarterly: <THUD!>

Once again...

In the 2004 election, Laurie Hawn described this at a forum in Westmount as the one thing we actually agree on for once. He was right then and he's right now.

I've met a lot of apathy at the tens of thousands of doors I have visited over the past two-and-a-half years; and I occasionally get very direct in my advice to them. The odd one gets a little angry at me for that; but if it makes them angry enough to get off the couch and vote for anyone, that's okay.

My personal favorite was the lady who said, "Well I like Liberals, so f*** off!" Slammed the Door in my face, pinning the leaflet I was holding in her door frame at which point I heard an audible "Prick!" As she snatched the leaflet through the frame. Let's just say I didn't try to sell her a PC membership.

Well said Laurie. On January 23rd, get off your damn ass and vote.

Will gives you seven instances of Paul Martin and Jean Chretien waffling, I'll give you seven and they'll be 100% Harper.

So Will says the Fiberals changed their minds on removing the GST in 1996, huh. Well didn't Chretien nearly lose his majority (38% of the popular vote) and didn't Sheila Copps resign her seat only to win it back in a by-election within the month over that very issue? I guess that 3 elections isn't enough for voters to have reaffirmed their support for a government whether or not it's a flip flop. So I guess that any reversal by Stephen Harper going back to oh, let's say 1997 should be equally untenable, right?

Let's start out by making two assumptions:

1. Stephen Harper is an intelligent individual, who thinks out the implications of his decisions.

2. Stephen Harper has read the work of people he claims to be acolytes of.

From an interview he did with the Montreal Gazette

Q: Can you name any conservative thinkers that influenced you?

A: I'm an economist by training, so obviously all the classical economists from (Adam) Smith right up to people like (F.A.) Hayek, as well as some of the modern public-choice theorists: people like James Buchanan.

On his pledge to reduce the GST, Stephen is betraying the theories of Adam Smith, who called in the second volume of wealth of nations for the majority of tax revenues to come from the consumption of non-necessity goods. Exempt food, exempt housing, tax most all else. Adam Smith also opposed the imposition of a tax wherein the burden is uncertain and assessed over a longer period. So a tax paid at the register might be preferable to say an annual income tax.

Look, my record is clear: I'm not a centralist. I'm a believer in division of powers between the federal and provincial governments and in provincial autonomy in resources and other matters.

So why would you intrude on the provincial attourney's general with your 'independent special prosecutor' in the mould of Ken Starr?

From an op ed in the National Post

What Albertans should take from this example [Defeat of the CA in 2000] is to become "maitres chez nous."

So Albertans should nationalise their energy companies? That was what the Maitres chez nous campaign was about. Concern over American domination of the Hydro industry.

He said next year in the same Gazette interview quoted earlier:

I wouldn't go that far. There is obviously a role for the state. There are public goods, and there are issues that really are not applicable to market-based solutions. But I tend to err on the side of individual freedom and accountability. I don't worship the marketplace, but it is a proven mechanism for providing the highest opportunities for personal choice and prosperity.

Since a 'maitres chez nous' policy would negatively impact my ability to participate in the energy market, that might be a contradiction, since economists don't view natural monopolies, wherein consuption can be controlled, as public goods. Prevention of global warming, where consumption cannot be controlled, could be considered a public good, however.

Numerous times Stephen Harper has asked, "why aren't Liberals in jail?" Back to the Gazette answering a question on civil liberties:

The distinction that has to be made is, are we talking about civil liberties in terms of coming to a conclusion about who's guilty and not guilty of a crime: how that guilt is investigated, ascertained and judged? And I think we should probably be more sensitive to those kinds of civil liberties.

And for the man that has famously promised a free vote on same sex marriage this is what he said when he left the Reform party whose pro-free vote policy he helped to author:

I'm looking for an opportunity where I'm not bound by a party line.

Quoting the article, "Harper said the NCC's reputation as an organization with conservative and libertarian leanings mesh with his own political philosophy."

Back to the Gazette:

I would not describe myself as a libertarian, by any means.

Or when reiterating in his own words his response to the question whether or not he would run for the Alliance leadership while at the NCC, through an arcticle in the NCC newsletter:

I have zero interest in leading this new entity or any existing party.

To wit: Waffles with Blueberries.

PCP vs. CPC: Focus vs. Optics, or why free media breeds arrogance and parochialism more than even government.

So what should appear in my e-mail yesterday but a press release unveiling the Progressive Canadian Party's press release unveiling thier Quebec candidates, reproduced below:

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: November 30, 2005
PC Party’s Quebec Candidates Include Former Minister Grafftey MONTRÉAL, QUÉBEC – Progressive Canadian (PC) Party leader Tracy Parsons has unveiled the first of her party’s Quebec candidates for the upcoming election, with former cabinet minister Heward Grafftey (Brome-Missisquoi) leading the way. Grafftey has been elected to Parliament seven times, and internal polling places him ahead of the Liberals and closing on the Bloc Québécois. “Heward’s candidacy might be the worst kept secret in Canadian politics,” Parsons said today. “He’s been out canvassing in this riding for the past year, and we’re looking to him to win his seat again.” The former Parliamentary Secretary and Science Minister was Canada’s first-ever anglophone to represent a predominantly-francophone riding, has represented Canada at the United Nations, and at one point was Quebec’s sole Progressive Conservative MP. Other PC Party candidates announced today were Marc St. Martin, a Montreal entrepreneur running in LaSalle-Émard and Cristoforo Vaiana, in Jeanne-Le-Ber. “We’re bringing new hope and a fresh beginning to federalist politics in Quebec,” says St. Martin, another former Progressive Conservative who has found his political home with the new PC Party. “Voters in Quebec are tired of Liberal arrogance and mismanagement and Harper is too socially conservative. So we offer them a real alternative to the Bloc.” The Progressive Canadian (PC) Party is a registered Federal Political Party comprised of progressive-conservative minded Canadians rebuilding from the roots of the former Progressive Conservative Party. For more information on the PC Party, its policies, structure or general information, go to www.progressivecanadian.org or call 866-812-6972.

Contact Information: Jim Love
President and National Campaign Chair416-698-0141 (Office416-708-5519 (Mobile)jim.love@pcparty.orgwww.pcparty.org
Thierry Philippe SigneQuebec Liaison514-655-5550 (Mobile)Thierry.signe@pcparty.orgwww.pcparty.org

Wow. Heward Grafftey, the grand old man of inclusive Anglo-Quebec conservatism, in second place in his riding. And Tracy going out of her way to introduce Heward. Also double PhD. Student St. Martin. A battle of Martins. Only 3 candidates though so I guess the PCs could put more effort into gushing about each of them.

However Stephen Harper seems to suffer from an inability to latch onto coattails when he sees them. So writes Greg Weston in today's Ottowa Sun syndicated column:

Harper's tour made an unusually long overnight stop here for an event billed as a "significant" policy announcement, and a showcase for eight "star" Quebec candidates.

Harper stepped up to the microphone, flanked by his party's stars, and promptly neglected to introduce any of them...

as the cameras rolled, Harper was asked to name his star candidates, the ones standing beside him and trying to put on a brave face. "The staff can give you that," he snapped. And this is only Day Two.

So is it just me, or does it seem likely that a PCP government would cultivate better quality talent from Quebec than a CPC government?

It's probably just me... right?